Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

22Jun/170

It really is all about power…

I have said this about anyone who is entrenched in the power structure in Washington DC but it is more applicable to the liberals than anyone else: it is not about solving problems it is about controlling our lives. Our elected officials and bureaucrats in federal government want to power more than anything else and that does include solving problems. Look at every problem they have claimed to address from economic issues to societal any qualities to the deficit, it doesn't matter none of those problems have gotten better by their own admission. And since the election of Donald Trump we have seen those on the left side of the aisle including many Republicans fight the president tooth and nail to prevent him from draining the swamp.

Pres. Trump has held a large number of meetings with different constituencies. The common theme among all of those meetings is how impressed the attendees are with Pres. Trump. Even those who disagree with him philosophically have said that they believe he listened to them and took their advice to heart and that he truly wants to address the issues and solve the problems. So if you are a member of a group that is invited to the White House to speak to Donald Trump wouldn't you jump at the opportunity? Wouldn't you at least give him a chance based upon the experiences of everyone else to hear your concerns and listen to what you want? Apparently not if you are the Congressional Black Caucus.

Pres. Trump has invited the members of the caucus to come to the White House and address issues that are important to them and the people they represent. The caucus has refused and the reasons for their refusal show that they are grasping at straws. And it also proves that it is about power and perception rather than really solving problems. Because think about this, what is the worst thing that could happen? They have a productive meeting with Pres. Trump in which he hears their concerns and then he does nothing. At least you and I would think that's the worst thing that could happen. But for the Congressional Black Caucus they could then go back out to their constituents and say this president doesn't care about them. He heard what they had to say and he did nothing.

But really, the worst thing for the Congressional Black Caucus is that Pres. Trump listens to them and acts upon their concerns. And then horror of horrors, some of the problems facing the CBCs constituents are solved! If that were to happen Pres. Trump would be seen as a hero and the Congressional Black Caucus and the liberals just cannot have that. Despite what you see in the news, Pres. Trump has accomplished quite a bit in the first few months of his presidency and the members of the caucus know that. They cannot take the chance that Pres. Trump can be given any credit for any positive things happening in our lives.

Back to the reasons they are giving for not being able to meet with the president: the first one listed by many members of the caucus is that Pres. Trump's assistant, Omarosa Manigault, signed the invitation "Honorable Omarosa Manigault, a title they say she has not earned and that it was offensive to them. They also claim that the logistics of getting 50 members of the caucus together are difficult but don't they hold meetings regularly? I'm sure that not everyone can make all of their meetings that you would think that a meeting with the president to address grievances would be something that most of them could make room for on their calendar.

Other members have given excuses such as not wanting to pose for a photo with the president for fear that someone thinks they are supporting Pres. Trump and having been able to avoid that in past meetings, they think avoiding a picture in the Oval Office would be impossible. they are also upset that he is not done anything to address their concerns but if you haven't expressed them to him and giving him options to address those that what you expect him to do? Is he supposed to read about your concerns in the mainstream media because all he reads or hears in the press the vile things that you are saying about him.

Quite simply this is not about solving problems this is about them having power over our lives plain and simple. It's also about being shortsighted and petty; but what would you expect from a group of liberals?

20Jun/170

Who takes care of whom?

I think we have been seeing a fundamental change in our society and our belief system over the last 4 to 5 decades. At least since the 1960s most of the problems that we have faced as a society, more of us have looked to the government to solve those problems than at any other time in our history. We have talked to a number of times on these pages and on the radio show, for example, about how the government never got involved in the private sector of our economy. Whenever there was an economic downturn the government stay out of it and market forces corrected things relatively quickly. That changed in the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt and His social programs to help people in need economically. But it wasn't until the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson that things really began to pick up speed.

Whether it's been civil rights, poverty, retirement income, gender equality, save the panda bear, whatever the problem might be it was usually up to us as a people to foment the change. Now don't get me wrong, government needed to step in at certain times to enact laws that we the people wanted but the real change in society had to come from the people themselves making changes to the way they lived. it also was up to us to help others in need.

For years it was private donations that kept many of these organizations trying to help others or make change in society running. Whether it was the YWCA or YMCA helping out homeless people or soup kitchens, or charitable organizations that started hospitals or relief efforts such as the Red Cross, they did not look to the government for funding.

But we begun to see more and more people believe that government should be the solution because in some way shape or form we began teaching our children that the government is the only entity that can solve the problem. Sometimes it's because we believe that they're the only ones with the money or they're the only ones that can do it equitably and without bias or discrimination. I think that teaching has been absolutely wrong and ignores history, but that is what our children have been taught since the 60s.

I think is a direct result of that education, there's a new survey that says millennials are only willing to give $10 or less a year to help solve global warming. 82% of millennial's would give less than $100 a year. The authors of the survey do not go into why this generation is not willing to give money but as I said for the last 20 to 30 years especially these children have been told that the government must be the ones making the change. They are the ones that have not seen how our generation or previous generations pitched in to help out society, to solve the problems that faced us.

And remember this, this generation of millennial's has been told for most of their life if not all of it that global warming is the number one threat facing them today. They have been told that if we do not solve the problem of man-made global warming their Earth will not be here when they are 65 years old. Mankind will be wiped out which means all other problems that face us are minuscule in comparison. Yet this generation is not willing to give even $10 a year to help solve the problem? That to me is unbelievable. If you truly believe that this was the major problem facing you wouldn't you be willing to give much more of your income to help solve it and save the world not only for yourself children? Apparently not.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
19Jun/170

Colin Kapernik doesn't like the police. I think that's safe to say. He's made it very clear that he thinks police are targeting blacks when they want to shoot someone. He's jumped back into the fray once again after a not guilty verdict in the shooting of a black youth by a police office.

Minnesota Police officer Jeronmio Yanez was found not guilty on charges of second degree manslaughter and two counts of intentionally discharging a firearm that endangers safety. He was found guilty after a trial in which evidence was presented and a verdict was returned. But once again, the left believes they know better than the judge and the jury. I would be that most didn't even read about the evidence presented and don't really care about it since a non-black police officer shot a black youth. That's proof that he was guilty and is a racist in and of itself right?

Kaepernick tweeted out a picture showing two badges, one of which said "Runaway Slave Patrol" and the other was a generic police officer badge. Clearly he was saying that all police officers are essentially out to kill all black because they see them all as runaway slaves. The photo had the caption, "You can't ignore your history, Always remember who they are." He posted along with the photo the following statement: A system that perpetually condones the killing of people without consequence, doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be dismantled.

Again, he clearly knows better than the judge or jury that heard the evidence and returned a verdict based upon the standard of proof required and how that evidence did or did not meet the standard of proof. I don't know if there was evidence that was excluded or anything like that, but it doesn't matter to Kaepernick and his ilk because black people are, in their opinion, being killed by police simple because of the color of their skin. Police are nothing more than runaway slave units hell bent on returning blacks to some plantation in the south.

Guys like Dan Lebatard defended Kaepernik saying he was just reacting to a truth in society and that white people can't understand what it's like to be a black in today's America. That we must either sit back and accept what Kaepernick says because we are white and can't understand or that Kaepernick can't be criticized because we are white and he's black and his perception is his reality. BS.

We can assess the situation and see if police really are targeting blacks simple because of the color of their skin; shooting blacks simply because they escaped some plantation that we know nothing about. But let's look at history: wasn't it white people who looked at slavery in America and said, "we don't like that" and then did something about it? Wasn't it white people in America who said Jim Crow laws, segregation and legalized discrimination were wrong and did something about it? That doesn't seem like a group of people who just threw up their hands and said "we can't do anything about this problem or that we don't even see a problem."

No, if we analyzed the evidence and thought that police were targeting black people without due cause, we would do something about it. But we don't see that because it's not happening. Simple saying that more blacks are shot than whites isn't good enough. Liberal policies have kept more blacks in poverty and put them in situations where they feel like they don't have any other choice but to engage in criminal activities which makes it more likely they will get shot during the commission of a crime.

And when we do see that officers overstepped their bounds, they are usually convicted of crimes. If the system miscarries justice, which happens, we are outraged and try to fix the system so that it doesn't happen again. That's what we do as Americans, whether we are white, black, brown etc.

22May/170

Diversity of opinion? Really?

It never ends. Democrats on the Senate finance committee were hearing testimony about tax reform proposals and thought there were some very good ideas from the five people who testified. However every one of them said that was not enough ethnic diversity among the five witnesses. One senator said there were not enough African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, or women on the witness list. The same senator said that he thought there were some very good ideas spanning some broad viewpoints. But then immediately said that because of the lack of diversity in the ethnic and gender areas of the witness list that there really was not true diversity of opinion.

So once again the liberals are showing you what they truly believe as opposed to what they say. Those senators believe that if you have a certain skin color or gender that you must agree on every issue. They don’t really want a diversity of opinion they just want to look at the panel and say there are people that look different so there must be diversity. Never mind that Maxine Waters and Condoleezza Rice, both African-American females, hold philosophically diverse opinions on almost every issue. Never mind that George Soros and Arthur Laffer hold significantly different viewpoints on economic issues. Yet both are white men. Apparently words don’t mean anything it’s only the demographic characteristic that’s important.

Here are a couple of facts about this situation: the Democrats had equal input into the witness list and who could be called to give testimony. If they had truly wanted to see ethnic or gender diversity, they could have provided it. However once again they manipulated the situation so they could grandstand during their opportunities to speak. This was organized prior to the hearing by the Democrats to try and embarrass the Republican majority.

Let’s not forget that tax reform will benefit all of us, regardless of the color of our skin, or sexual orientation, or gender. I have not seen anyone put forth a tax reform bill that provides benefits only to certain that is that these or other demographic groups. It’s all based upon income without regard for any demographic characteristic.

While we are at it, let’s talk about this whole identity politics movement. We as a country and a society have made a great deal of progress in civil rights over the past 50 years fighting primarily against the Democrat party who have tried to stall the march towards equality. Remember it was them who put in place all of the Jim Crow laws and other laws that promoted and allowed segregation and racism. Why aren’t the people pushing for a quality celebrating how far we have come as opposed to continuing with this victim mentality?

And if we really have not made progress as they claim, we have been following their tactics and their plan to achieve racial equality for three or more decades. If it’s not working then let’s try something new to improve the status of race relations and the standing of minorities in America. Once again it just shows you that it’s more about having power as opposed to achieving a true goal.

22May/170

John Kennedy has some really good ideas

Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana as a couple of great ideas that are gaining traction. First the big complaint about Dodd Frank is the onerous regulations placed upon all banks which have really prohibited smaller banks from being able to loan money. This hurts middle income and lower income wage earners in America. Because often they don’t meet the strict criteria, being able to check off a box or put a number in the right place, that big impersonal banks have. Small local banks have more flexibility in loaning money; or at least they use to.

The stated purpose of the Dodd Frank was to rein in the big banks so Sen. Kennedy has proposed a solution, since it seems that there isn’t the political will to completely repeal the law. All you have to do is exempt the medium and small sized banks from the regulations put in place by the Bell. His proposal is that if you have less than $10 billion in capitalization you do not have to comply with Dodd Frank. Doesn’t that seem really simple and straightforward? Which probably means it doesn’t have much of a shot.

Secondly, he has offered a new bill that would require you to go to work if you are receiving Medicaid. Simply, if you are between the ages of 18 and 55, are not disabled; do not have kids; then you must go to work in order to continue to receive Medicaid benefits. The bill he has authored would require you to get a part-time job of at least 20 hours a week, in the alternative you can do 20 hours of community service, or you could enroll in a college degree program for the equivalent of 20 hours a week.

These are the kind of simple straightforward solutions that people will oppose, the media and the political elite will say it’s not that simple but it is. If our politicians really want to help the middle class they would give the smaller banks the exemption they need to begin loaning money again. This would stimulate the economy through increased housing purchases or construction; loans to people who want to start a small business; and so much more. And requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to work will be called and bigoted but the rest of us have to work to get what we need or want so why shouldn’t someone receiving benefits from the government, which is our tax money after work also?

26Apr/170

The First Amendment is under assault, again

26Apr/170

This discussion about tax reform isn’t about us; it’s about retaining power.

As we have watched the “debate” about tax reform over the last few weeks, it’s become apparent that changing things in Washington DC is going to be more difficult than anyone thought. There are many reasons for this but of course the underlying theme is that it’s all about power and control. We here in the mainstream media which parents the liberal mantra is that we can’t cut taxes because that will increase the deficit. For that the poor, the elderly or some other subgroup of Americans will be devastated because of the increased deficit and possibility that spending would be cut. Then there’s the old saw about giving tax breaks to the rich. The other consistent theme to this whole argument and discussion is that our political elite with their friends in the media ignore history.

We’re told that tax reform is complicated because people make decisions based upon the current tax laws and tax treatment of certain situations. They act like as if no alternative plans have ever been tried or proposed. Certainly people do make decisions based upon tax policy but a large majority of these deductions or so-called loopholes affect a small percentage of the population. A few years ago the Republicans put forth again a very simple and straightforward solution. It was basically a tax filing form that fit on a large postcard. This applied to individual income taxes. Basically you filled in a few boxes that included your gross income, then a lot of deductions for mortgage interest, child tax credit, charitable contributions, college tuition tax credit, and the earned income tax credit. Little bit of simple math and you either owed taxes or got a refund. Not only is that simple but it covers the vast majority of common deductions that people currently take. It would also reduce the size of the IRS saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year potentially.

Reforming corporate and business taxes would not be much more difficult. Certainly there are a lot more deductions for expenses that could be allowed. It’s not uncommon for most businesses to have capital expenditures for example or even research and development expenses. But limiting a lot of other specialty deductions that don’t apply to a majority of the corporate and business filers would be easy to do although politically difficult and of course that’s what this is all about.

Ignoring history is also part and parcel of the political elites modus operandi. Every time our government has cut taxes, revenue has grown. Whether it was Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, revenue has grown every time. Lowering the tax rate on businesses and individuals has stimulated the economy which not only means there are more sales and revenues to tax, but more people are in the workforce which means there are more individual taxpayers. And many of these corporations will repatriate money that has been sitting in foreign bank accounts because they don’t want to pay double taxes on that income.

When Ronald Reagan first took office the highest tax rate was 75%. He cut the top tax rate to 28% and everything else below that was similarly reduced. Revenues to the federal government double. Now I know some of you will say that the deficit grew under Ronald Reagan and it did. But that’s because Tip O’Neill and the rest of Congress went back on their promise to cut spending or even keep spending level. Once they saw the extra money coming in they spent it rather than using it to pay down the deficit.

The simple fact is this if you want to grow revenue to the federal government, or any government for that matter, cut spending. And get rid of baseline budgeting which is just as big of a culprit in growing the size of government and the deficit is anything else.

If this 'discussion' truly was about us and the taxes we pay or growing the economy or reducing the deficit, then it would be easy for Congress to come up with a plan and take action. But because this discussion is more about retaining power in Washington D.C., it's complicated; the politicians and bureaucrats are trying to figure out a way to pull the wool over our eyes once again and not do the job we said we wanted done with our votes in the last election.

25Apr/170

Why not NM athletes?

I have been broadcasting football and basketball games for 17 years now at first it was both college and high school but the majority of my time has been with college sports. I’m also involved with tennis and golf at both levels. Over the years I have been asked why the smaller schools, Western New Mexico University, Eastern New Mexico University, New Mexico Highlands, etc. don’t recruit more players from New Mexico. Especially if those programs are not having the on-field success in the number of wins that you would want. The belief is, among parents of high school athletes, that the small colleges looked down upon the ability of New Mexico athletes. It’s not quite that simple.

I was listening to an interview being conducted by John Clayton of Delvin Cook, the running back from Florida State that many considered to be one of the top two running backs in the upcoming NFL draft. I think he gave one of the best answers to a question that was similar that I’ve ever heard. It provides at least part of the answer to why more kids from New Mexico high schools don’t have the success at the elite level or even the so-called mid-majors in college, that many people think they would have had given their success at the high school level here in New Mexico.

When I’ve been asked the question whether in general terms were about specific athletes, one of the answers I’ve always given is that it’s a numbers game. High schools in Texas, Florida, and California are huge. There are more players that are talented in those high schools than there are in probably two or three high schools here in New Mexico. When you’re playing against mortality competition in practice every day you get better. Dalvin was asked by John Clayton how growing up in Florida pushed him to be a better player. He said quite simply there are so many good running backs in Florida that you push yourself to be better than all of them. You watch things that some of the better ones doing you try to emulate them or do it better. You watch college running backs just at the schools in Florida and you see the best of the best and you learn from them. In other words the standard of excellence is much higher where there are a larger number of potentially elite players than where the number of potentially elite players is minimal.

That’s the problem with New Mexico, there is a dearth of talented players that can push the potentially elite players to get even better. Yes traveling teams and AAU can’t help but those seasons are so short as compared to the practice and regular-season in high school sports. If you are consistently playing against teammates and or opponents in high school that are going to go on to play college at some level you will get better if you continue to work hard. If you’re playing against the kid who spend their summers goofing off or doesn’t have the potential to play at the next level, there’s only so far you can advance on your own. Yes there have been exceptions like Brian Urlacher or Tim Smith; but those guys are the exceptions.

I can tell you how many top high school players in football and basketball from New Mexico I’ve watched attend Division I programs and never really get a chance to play. My cousin was one of those players. He played his high school basketball in Aztec and was recruited by a number of what we call Division II schools now and a few Division I schools. Like a lot of New Mexico athletes he wanted to go to the best school in Division I that he could. He ended up at the University of New Mexico playing with the likes of Luc Longley. He sat the bench for three years, rarely getting into a game. He was the kid that everyone cheered for when he finally got into the game for the last 30 seconds of a blowout win. He didn’t play his final season for a variety of reasons, mostly not liking the new coach, but including the fact that he just sat the bench.

Too often this is the story for many of the top athletes in New Mexico. Because they are outstanding at the high school level everyone tells them they can go to the top level in college athletics but more often than not they end up sitting the bench or quitting somewhere during their career. They could go to a very good Division II school and get to play almost from the beginning and be a top player on the top team at that level. If they really love the game they’re playing, why would you go somewhere just to sit on the bench and say I’m a Division I athlete as opposed to playing at a lower level and potentially becoming a legend there?

I have seen some of the top high school athletes in New Mexico attend Division II schools and become stars for them and never regretted that decision. I have also seen some that spent two years at the lower level and then transferred to a Division I school and gotten to play some and it worked for them. But rarely do I see in New Mexico athlete go straight to Division I and become an impact player for their entire career. More often than not that watch those players quit because it wasn’t fun anymore.

So I guess that’s kind of a long-winded, roundabout way of saying that New Mexico schools do try to recruit New Mexico high school athletes but too often those surrounding that athlete have a higher opinion of that person’s ability and push them to go to bigger schools. Every coach I’ve been around, including schools for whom I do not broadcast, have said the same thing; the biggest obstacle they have been trying to recruit New Mexico high school athletes is the parents and most of the coaches who are telling this kid to go Division I. The story is usually the same, a coach from a big school is telling that kid that they will make him or her a project and that they will eventually play for that team. And what kid doesn’t want to go to a bigger school where the lights are brighter and the crowds are bigger? But a lot of the schools that I’ve been around in my career have crowds that are just as passionate, lights that are just as bright and yes they send a significant number of kids to the next level.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
12Apr/170

Are you sure you want unfettered immigration?

Atty. Gen. Jeff sessions was in Nogales Arizona this week making a statement about the administrations stance on illegal immigration. Of course the left wing and many in the media, which are the same I know, said that the policies being implemented by a Trump administration racist and inhumane. Again they obfuscate the facts in order to create an emotional reaction in the low information voter with the intent of returning themselves to power rather than having a legitimate debate about our immigration policy.

We should make it very clear that the conservative position which is essentially the same position that Pres. Trump has taken, is that we want to be able to control who comes to America for the purposes of trying to weed out as many bad people as we can. Whether they be terrorists or criminals doesn't matter. We know that many countries in Central America for example have released their prison populations and given them assistance in trying to get to the United States, crossing our border illegally. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied that some of the people coming across illegally, from any country, are here with the sole intent of improving their lives. Our position is that we want to help more of them, those who want to a better their lives, come here legally. To that end, there needs to be a change in how legal immigration is handled by this country. But until that is done, we can't continue to allow unfettered illegal immigration. All we have to do is look at history to tell us that things will not happen.

All over Europe, countries who have taken the "refugees" with little or no venting, from the middle eastern countries, are re-thinking those policies. The vast majority of refugees coming from the middle east are not assimilating into the cultures of the countries where they now live. In fact they are doing everything they can to change the cultures of those countries to match their belief systems. Often they are using violence to achieve that goal. It is not hard to find the stories because they are very prominent in the European media outlets, at least many of them. The left in this country will ignore those realities as they argue with Pres. Trump about his immigration stance.

Very often one of the arguments the left uses is that not all Muslims are violent jihadists. That is true, but one of the arguments that the conservatives have stated is that the so-called moderate Muslims are not speaking out against the radical set of their religion that promotes violence against all nonbelievers. All we have to do is look at what happened in Sweden recently to give us the most recent example of how the moderate Muslims are not part of the solution. Now we can argue about whether or not there are really moderate Muslims who do not share the belief system of the radical sect of Islam or whether all Muslims share their views but just do not participate in the violence. For the purposes of this discussion, we are going to assume that there are moderate Muslims in the world.

After the recent attack in which a Muslim man drove a vehicle into a crowd and killed a number of Swedish citizens, there was a candlelight vigil held to show support for the families of the deceased. A reporter from CNN attended the event to see for herself whether or not moderate Muslims would actually attend the peaceful vigil. After she wrote her article she was being interviewed on CNN about what she did see. She admitted that she attended the event expecting to see some percentage of the crowd, which she estimated at between 20 to 25,000 people, representing the Islamic faith. She admitted that she wanted to refute the narrative from the right that moderate Muslims are sitting on the sidelines.

What she said she found was quite different than what she expected. She and her crew, along with reporters from other entities, roamed through the crowd for quite a while, both before, during, and after the vigil. She said that if there were any attendees that practiced the Islamic faith, none of them could find any. They all agreed that the crowd was quite homogenous, essentially being made up of white skinned and blonde haired Swedish citizens. There was very little diversity in the crowd that she or her colleagues observed.

She went on to say that there are now to Sweden's: at least around Stockholm, which she said the main city is still populated primarily by Swedish, natural born, citizens and the suburbs which are made up primarily of Islamic refugees. Those suburbs do not reflect Swedish society in any way shape or form. Those neighborhoods have been converted to Islamic conclaves. In fact, the Swedish Postal Service recently announced that they will no longer deliver mail to those neighborhoods because of the violence committed against their postal workers. she said she was disappointed to confirm what many on the right side of the aisle have been saying about unfettered immigration from middle eastern countries. She of course still believes that engagement with these communities would solve the problem but is not as firm in that belief as she was before.

Of course her experience with that vigil is just one of many examples that we can point to in almost any country in the world that has accepted Islamic refugees. Their experiences have been extremely similar and not in a good way. It's nice to be idealistic but you must also be realistic and realize that not everything will go the way you wanted to know matter how hard you try. Pres. Trump's immigration policies are the right thing to do. They are not bigoted or racist in any way shape or form because it will apply to every country whether it be Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or any other demographic characteristic you want to identify. And I think deep down, even opponents will agree, if they are open-minded and well-informed, that these policies are the right policies to adopt. You will

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
12Apr/170

Conundrum

Sometimes you see something and you have an initial reaction in which you are dismissive of the situation or support it of what is going on: then after a bit of reflection you’re not quite so sure how you really feel about what people are doing. After the terrorist used the vehicle to drive through a crowd of bread to kill people in England, the reaction of many Brits was interesting and I found myself at first dismissive of what many were doing but now I’m not so sure.

Of course after the attack, there was the typical discussion about whether or not radical Islam was to blame and the left of course accused the right wing updating all Muslims and being intolerant. So what many people started doing was walking across that bridge, riding the subway, or walking through predominantly Islamic neighborhoods in London. They would take a selfie with their phone and put the hashtag, “I am not afraid”. Now I agree with the idea that in the face of such heinous attacks we have to stand up strongly in defiance of what the terrorists are trying to do to our society. But I think I’ve grown so tired of the selfie and hashtags that my initial reaction was somewhat dismissive of what these people were doing.

To some extent walking across the bridge and/or taking the subway right after a terrorist attack is not a very brave action. In those areas where the attack occurred or might occur, there is increased security and a heightened awareness of potential threats. So it really doesn’t take much to go to those areas because you are probably going to be safer there than in other parts of the city.

But there is some value in symbolism and sending a message to the terrorists that essentially says you are not going to change the way I live my life and you are not going to scare me into being subservient to your demands.

But you put these two acts together with walking through Islamic neighborhoods and aren’t the left wing admitting to some extent that it is Islamic-based terrorism? Remember the left wing tells us that this is not a philosophy based in the Muslim religion, despite the facts that tell us otherwise. When the conservatives say that we must battle the philosophy of radical Islam in order to be successful in this terrorism war, we do not condemn all Muslims. Only those that believe in the radical form of jihad that drives these insane acts. It’s the left wing that wants to put everybody that shares a demographic characteristic into the same category.

So by saying that they are not afraid to walk through an Islamic neighborhood they are tacitly admitting that Islam is the problem; otherwise why engage in the “brave act” of walking through an Islamic neighborhood? It’s because you inherently know that at least part of that population wants to kill you because you are different yet when it becomes time for you to admit that and take action based upon that fact, the left wing cannot and will not admit the truth.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments